7 ms·

As a great Ubuntu fan I must say: It's strange why mobile plattforms are always a example for the success of Linux. Android may be using a Linux kernel, but it

by macco 15y ago

As a great Ubuntu fan I must say: It's strange why mobile plattforms are always a example for the success of Linux. Android may be using a Linux kernel, but it has next to nothing to do with traditionel Linux distros, that are developed in colaboration.

rbanffy 15y ago
You see the collaboration because desktop and server distros are so much bigger than Android, Bada, MeeGo and WebOS. OTOH, you can see the collaboration of Google, Samsung, Nokia and Palm/HP on the Linux kernel itself, even on your desktop or server. As for collaboration, although Android is open-source, it's not developed by a community - it's Google's gift to the world built on top of a Linux kernel.
ajross 15y ago
This is more a myth than reality. It's definitely not a compatible environment, but I'd argue with "next to nothing". Android shares the same kernel, is built with the same toolchain, has the same underlying POSIX environment (albeit a reimplemented one, not the GNU software itself), uses most of the same base library set (libjpeg, zlib, etc...), uses most of the same middleware components (bluez, wpa_supplicant, etc...). The one big architectural difference is that they ripped out the X server and replaced it with their own minimal window system. But even then the rendering API (OpenGL ES) is an existing standard from the desktop world. And the only hugely different component is the API: they wrote an app framework in Java and run it on their own VM. But that's just the skin. Underneath it's all still linux. To someone who does nothing but write apps using top-level frameworks, Android looks "next to nothing" like "Linux". To someone who actually knows linux, it's all the same stuff.
- sdkmvx 15y ago
  It's interesting that you say this. If POSIX was all that there is to it, then isn't Apple iOS/Mac OS the same as Android and (insert-your-favorite-distro-here) Linux? I think ultimately the differences between user-facing (and even developer-facing, API-level stuff) components are way more important than the fact that POSIX is so common. After all, we would't describe two computers as basically the same because they both have a CPU/RAM/Storage unless we were comparing them to say, a car.
  - ajross 15y ago
    All I'm saying is that by any complexity metric you want to pick (lines of code, whatever) Android and "Linux" are far, far more alike than different. The layer you are picking as "way more important" only seems more important to you because it's the layer you live in. The rest of the software is really important too (where would you be without the networking stack or video codecs, for example?) and to those people (and there are lot of us!) bringing up software on Android is more or less the same as doing it on desktop linux.
    - comex 15y ago
      > All I'm saying is that by any complexity metric you want to pick (lines of code, whatever) Android and "Linux" are far, far more alike than different. Citation needed. The Android-specific stuff makes up a lot of code.
      - ajross 15y ago
        A quick "du" over a fairly stale source tree shows the "external" tree as larger than the rest of the source trees added together. And that's not including the kernel, which is (by far) the largest single component. Really: you need to get your head out of app space if you want to talk about platforms. There's an immense amount of code in a modern system that you never see. And Android (correctly) sucked it all in from linux instead of reimplementing it.
        sdkmvx 15y ago
        > Really: you need to get your head out of app space if you want to talk about platforms. Do you know that comex has written several jailbreaks for iOS? I think he's more qualified to talk about mobile platforms than either of us. When we compare two systems, we should look at the code that is different. Everything about desktop Linux and Android is different except for the stuff that all computers need to do. Basic OS services are a solved problem, and that's why you don't see too many people writing OSes today.
mrb 15y ago
Why restrict yourself to traditional distros? The biggest advantage of Linux that its supporters have been explaining for a while is that because it is open source, it can be modified to suit your needs and build whatever cool product you want with it. Google did just that with Android. Therefore it is a perfectly valid example for this article to claim rightfully that Linux is winning.
- cageface 15y ago
  And it'a perfect example of the kind of innovation that OSS enables. Thanks to Linux, instead of wasting time building a new kernel from the ground up Google was able to spend that time building something entirely new on top of it.

by macco 15y ago

rbanffy 15y ago

You see the collaboration because desktop and server distros are so much bigger than Android, Bada, MeeGo and WebOS. OTOH, you can see the collaboration of Google, Samsung, Nokia and Palm/HP on the Linux kernel itself, even on your desktop or server. As for collaboration, although Android is open-source, it's not developed by a community - it's Google's gift to the world built on top of a Linux kernel.

ajross 15y ago

This is more a myth than reality. It's definitely not a compatible environment, but I'd argue with "next to nothing". Android shares the same kernel, is built with the same toolchain, has the same underlying POSIX environment (albeit a reimplemented one, not the GNU software itself), uses most of the same base library set (libjpeg, zlib, etc...), uses most of the same middleware components (bluez, wpa_supplicant, etc...). The one big architectural difference is that they ripped out the X server and replaced it with their own minimal window system. But even then the rendering API (OpenGL ES) is an existing standard from the desktop world. And the only hugely different component is the API: they wrote an app framework in Java and run it on their own VM. But that's just the skin. Underneath it's all still linux. To someone who does nothing but write apps using top-level frameworks, Android looks "next to nothing" like "Linux". To someone who actually knows linux, it's all the same stuff.

sdkmvx 15y ago
It's interesting that you say this. If POSIX was all that there is to it, then isn't Apple iOS/Mac OS the same as Android and (insert-your-favorite-distro-here) Linux? I think ultimately the differences between user-facing (and even developer-facing, API-level stuff) components are way more important than the fact that POSIX is so common. After all, we would't describe two computers as basically the same because they both have a CPU/RAM/Storage unless we were comparing them to say, a car.
- ajross 15y ago
  All I'm saying is that by any complexity metric you want to pick (lines of code, whatever) Android and "Linux" are far, far more alike than different. The layer you are picking as "way more important" only seems more important to you because it's the layer you live in. The rest of the software is really important too (where would you be without the networking stack or video codecs, for example?) and to those people (and there are lot of us!) bringing up software on Android is more or less the same as doing it on desktop linux.
  - comex 15y ago
    > All I'm saying is that by any complexity metric you want to pick (lines of code, whatever) Android and "Linux" are far, far more alike than different. Citation needed. The Android-specific stuff makes up a lot of code.
    - ajross 15y ago
      A quick "du" over a fairly stale source tree shows the "external" tree as larger than the rest of the source trees added together. And that's not including the kernel, which is (by far) the largest single component. Really: you need to get your head out of app space if you want to talk about platforms. There's an immense amount of code in a modern system that you never see. And Android (correctly) sucked it all in from linux instead of reimplementing it.
      - sdkmvx 15y ago
        > Really: you need to get your head out of app space if you want to talk about platforms. Do you know that comex has written several jailbreaks for iOS? I think he's more qualified to talk about mobile platforms than either of us. When we compare two systems, we should look at the code that is different. Everything about desktop Linux and Android is different except for the stuff that all computers need to do. Basic OS services are a solved problem, and that's why you don't see too many people writing OSes today.

mrb 15y ago

Why restrict yourself to traditional distros? The biggest advantage of Linux that its supporters have been explaining for a while is that because it is open source, it can be modified to suit your needs and build whatever cool product you want with it. Google did just that with Android. Therefore it is a perfectly valid example for this article to claim rightfully that Linux is winning.

cageface 15y ago
And it'a perfect example of the kind of innovation that OSS enables. Thanks to Linux, instead of wasting time building a new kernel from the ground up Google was able to spend that time building something entirely new on top of it.